ArticleANZ journal of surgery2026
Point-of-View Video Recording Devices in Plastic Surgery: Educational Utility and Medicolegal Documentation Potential.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Point-of-View Video Recording Devices in Plastic Surgery: Educational Utility and Medicolegal Documentation Potential.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOperative video supports performance review and education, but consistent surgeon point-of-view (POV) capture in plastic and reconstructive surgery is challenging. We assessed the perceived educational effectiveness of a smart-glasses POV system and documentation/implementation considerations, including medicolegal use.
methodsDe-identified operative segments were recorded using second-generation Meta AI Glasses. Curated videos/stills were shown to consultants, trainees, and medical students, who completed an anonymous questionnaire with optional free-text.
resultsThirty-five respondents participated (17 students, 12 junior doctors/registrars, 6 consultants); 24/35 (68.6%) provided free-text. Video quality and clarity/stability were rated good/excellent by 35/35 (100%); field of view and audio by 31/35 (88.6%) and 29/35 (82.9%). Documentation quality and clinically relevant detail were rated good/excellent by 33/35 (94.3%), and the added value of commentary was rated good/excellent by 32/35 (91.4%); 29/35 (82.9%) would recommend using POV recording for documentation. Educational value was strongly endorsed (34/35, 97.1% agreed POV recordings effectively teach/review technique). Patient-facing and medicolegal-related items were endorsed less consistently (22/35-30/35, 62.9%-85.7%). Consultants were more critical of the field-of-view/audio (good/excellent 50% each) and less likely than non-consultants to recommend routine documentation (1/6, 16.7% vs. 28/29, 96.6%). Free-text prioritised zoom/loupe compatibility, audio/lighting and alignment improvements, and governance around consent, privacy, storage, and access.
conclusionSmart-glasses POV recording was considered a feasible, high-value adjunct to surgical education, especially when accompanied by narration. Wider adoption for routine documentation and medicolegal utility depends less on conceptual acceptance and more on resolving current technical limits and establishing robust consent, privacy, storage, access, and governance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.